This is like the best SVU episode of time, a real straight-forward procedural - a report of a highly informative and important article being put together by a team of reporters... but its a fool-poof conceit - Spotlight fits into a unique subgenre with a rich cinematic tradition - the conspiracy movie. with the conspiracy movie (whether its jfk or all the presidents men or..) the audience gets to feel as smart and satisfied as the characters unearthing the conspiracy / mystery... lots of tracking shots as characters walk from room to room, from revelation to revelation, pulsing with the sense of forward momentum and just cause... this process of "discovery" offers so much to the characters, and by proxy, the audience - the urgency and immediacy of the objective totally eliminates the need for characterization, which is why SVU or any of the law and orders never feel obliged to lean on character exposition for pathos (a lesson I wished a lot movies would learn from)... ultimately Spotlight is a tribute to old fashioned reporting... it hearkens back to the way news traveled in the pre-internet era... there's a fun but very self-conscious image in the movie: of an AOL billboard looming over the globe parking lot - news media won't be the same in a few years - a piece of reporting like this could never happen today, or at least it wouldn't happen in the way that it did in 2001, when the internet was still young... its also a great boston movie, very laidback - no forced boston accents - and the obligatory throwaway lines to Boston sports that necessarily appear in every Boston movie (The Town!) felt more grounded here.. wiped the taste of black mass from my mouth...

loved thisvery deliberate and it's one of the first "grown up movie" I've seen in a long time in that American sense.really badly shot and graded

but the writing and the acting - it's the thing that TV is nailing now more and more but cinema (especially American cinema) has dropped the ball on - it really plays out like a piece of investigative journalism - it doesn't feed the audience drama or emotions and we only become more invested in the stories as the characters become more invested. it doesn't go out of its way to illustrate the horror or the atrocity, but over time it takes a toll, and even tho it never shows the horror and rarely even talks about it, it does seep in and we are discovering the same information as these characters. it also does a beautiful job not merely indicting the "villains" - but also showing how easy it is to be jaded by a seemingly impenetrable system - and also asks some tougher rhetorical questions towards the end. I definitely plan on seeing this again. totally my cup of tea. it's Wire-esque in how it doesn't explain too much to the audience, but you get it. and it rewards people for listening or paying attention. terrific film.

No, but I totally second everything you said. For how popular this film is right now I haven't seen much critical appreciation, but you hit the nail on the head about how such a technically dull film can still pack a powerful punch.

saw it again - even better this time. also - I was wrong about it being shot badly, I saw it at a big theater on star wars weekend, and I think they calibrated the screen for 3D, which is to say - much brighter than needed, resulting in bad images. I highly recommend this film.

i liked it. it's about integrity. like the work of david simon, this is a work that understands how film is the ultimate support for a news report or a work of non-fiction. now that newspapers are a wasteland.

didn't find much to compare it to the big short, other than the fact that both films deal with workaholics , because, how else would these films be interesting if it wasn't with sleepless, intense characters? that seems to be a recurrence in newspaper films. that, and those khaki diaper butt pants.

there was a scene that i thought was inspiring : the moment Rezendes gets in the taxi and goes to the office to tell the rest of the team what was in the documents. the way that was done, with a voiceover that is happening in the office, while showing how he goes from the court building to the newspaper offices , and showing the city in between, i thought it was a way of making visual an idea that is expressed verbally earlier in the movie, that some institutions are best working independently.

^"some institutions are best working independently" was roughly said by Liev Schreiber to the Cardinal. that was a great scene. and i think this movie's accomplishments are exemplified by Mark Ruffalo running to the taxi scene. really liked how you said "these films be interesting if it wasn't with sleepless, intense characters" too.

also liked how pete typed "we only become more invested in the stories as the characters become more invested" and "showing how easy it is to be jaded by a seemingly impenetrable system".

and JG typed "pulsing with the sense of forward momentum and just cause" and "ultimately Spotlight is a tribute to old fashioned reporting..."

it was focused on reality, which is how the best journalism happens, and i found its focus inspirational. i felt the charge that's being appreciated. thought it was a sharp, enjoyable movie, but it's not my favorite thing because journalism is a degree, life is a drama.

i remember being in Mark Ruffalo's apartment and the other guy was like hey get a better place it's a bummer your relationship ended, and Mark was like whatever dude i'm so fucking focused right now, kinda thing, people bringing people food is another mainstay of this movie type, which means there were bits and pieces shown from their personal lives, and what i'm saying is my tastes lean toward the dramatic movies with the bits of journalism.

ok I'm backI've been really irked by this video essay - https://vimeo.com/153064188it seems to have a very childish and arbitrary opinion on what is and isn't cinematic. it dismisses Spotlight wholesale because of "shot reverse shot", which, it argues, is for television. I got in a debate with some filmmakers yesterday too over movies like Birdman. I don't think "cinematic" just means long impressive camerawork. I think "cinematic" can refer to any moment where you feel like you're in awe of the work, looking up at it in the dark (or any content that gives you that same feeling via your computer or tablet or home theater). and, as such, birdman doesn't automatically get to be called great cinema because of Chivo. I think great drama and good acting and good writing can also turn something cinematic. AM I WRONG?!

one more observation about spotlight - in every review I've read, in the two languages that I'm fluent in - the reviewers all seem to be enamored by the film's restraint, knowing all the tricks the film could've employed. I feel like this is one of those rare films that is charismatic in its restraint - the same way a Tarantino film charms you with its excess. And, just as critics like to take cheap shots at Tarantino or Coen or Wes Anderson whenever they recognize "style" on screen - as if all it takes were just money and immaturity to do what they do - this Fandor fuck seems to apply the same type of laziness onto Spotlight because he's confusing "what the film's restrains itself against" with "what the film lacks". It's very frustrating and it's additionally frustrating because it seems to be the majority opinion, even amongst young filmmakers.

I think "cinematic" can refer to any moment where you feel like you're in awe of the work, looking up at it in the dark (or any content that gives you that same feeling via your computer or tablet or home theater). and, as such, birdman doesn't automatically get to be called great cinema because of Chivo. I think great drama and good acting and good writing can also turn something cinematic. AM I WRONG?!

It's very frustrating and it's additionally frustrating because it seems to be the majority opinion, even amongst young filmmakers.

there's a pound of cinema in Mark Ruffalo's lips alone. i absolutely think that. i try to keep in mind the Fitzgerald quote, "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function," and that's tricky, i think you could tell the young filmmakers they're not cinephilic they're cathectic, you'd have a great tongue click thrown in, but also the desires of those young filmmakers ignite their particular visions, which they should have as well, i'm sure you agree. saying i've seen your material and you should definitely have your vision, i'd watch your Spotlight, it didn't strike me as tv, and you're right.